School Vouchers Expected To Survive
Court Test

Private schools that might teach forms of intolerance
or aggressionvalues that run counter to traditionally American
ideals of equality and diversitycould receive public funding
if school vouchers prove to be a popular alternative to public
schools, Law School Dean John C. Jeffries, Jr. said during a panel
discussion at the Law School April 1. Jeffries joined professors
Barbara Armacost, Vincent Blasi and John Harrison in debating
the validity of school vouchers and the potential consequences
of a publicly funded voucher system during the program, "The
Constitutionality of School Vouchers and the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Case," sponsored by the Virginia Law Democrats .

"Imagine a series of private institutions
that are saying illiberal things with public money," Jeffries
said. In time, the potential drawbacks of school vouchers will
show how committed or not Americans are to a common education
rather than to a publicly funded private education, Jeffries said.

The program opened with comments from panelists about the Zelman
v. Simmons-Harris case, heard by the Supreme Court in February
(a decision is due in July). The case concerns children in the
Cleveland public school district who can obtain vouchers of about
$2500 per year to use towards private school tuition. Because
of the low amount of the voucher, most of the participating schools
in the program are religious; unlike other private schools, they
have more funds through their parent church or through donationsand
they have lower overhead costs. Of the schools participating in
the program, 82 percent are religious, and between 88 and 96 percent
of students participating in the program are enrolled in religious
schools, according to the brief filed by the Anti-Defamation League
in support of Harris-Simmons. All panelists predicted that the
court would uphold the Cleveland voucher system.

Prof. Barbara Armacost said she doubted that
the public school system would end as a result of vouchers.

The case raises questions about the division
of church and state, Blasi said. "Is a voucher system an
instance of using a religious means to serve civil ends?"
he asked. Blasi said religious schools could grow dependent on
what would amount to a government subsidy. Because religious institutions
in the past have offered sharp criticism of the government, such
as during the abolition movement, civil rights movement, and currently
in the abortion debate, many fear that religious institutions
could lose their edge as vessels of political discourse. Furthermore,
Blasi said many wonder about the long-term effect vouchers will
have on public schools. How much of our ability to get along and
interact, for example, depends on mutual elementary and secondary
education, he conjectured. "Is it dangerous to our civil
society to think of education as a private good rather than a
public good?" he asked.

"We do have values that are broadly defined,"
Armacost said. "We also have a huge and increasing diversity"
that may have trouble subscribing to one worldview. "One
alternative is to say maybe we can't have education as a lowest
common denominator," she said. But if private schools take
on increasing numbers of students "we may lose exposure to
people who think different things."

Armacost said parents' ability to choose among
private schools is paramount for the endorsement of Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor, who is the swing vote in close cases. In the Cleveland
voucher system, Armacost said, parents "don't really have
a meaningful choice" of schools because usually only religious
schools have tuition that low.

Other issues that once clouded the outlook for
vouchers have fallen by the wayside. "The claims of the taxpayer
once loomed large in the debate," Blasi said, but Americans
have grown used to subsidizing programs they don't agree with
in the "welfare state."

While the issues surrounding funding voucher
systems have shifted, so too has the focus of the Supreme Court,
Harrison said. In the 1960s, the Court was more interested in
effects; now it is more interested in purpose, Harrison said.
"It's now become very important for the justices, for example,
whether the program is open to everybody."

Prof. John Harrison said the public school
system might benefit from competition.

Harrison said your stance on vouchers depends
on if you view them as private property or as choices of the state.
If you take the latter stance, you will probably view vouchers
as problematic. "Should parents or the larger society have
control over what is taught to children is about a hot button
issue as you can get," he said.

Part of the reason Americans even consider vouchers
as an alternative now is because the public's view of schools
has changed dramatically in the last 50 years, Jeffries said.
"There's been a loss of confidence in public education,"
he said.

Because providing equal dollars for all students
has not shown a dramatic effect in inner city schools, many feel
that introducing competition will help public schools rise to
the challenge. Part of the momentum for vouchers, Armacost said,
is that some kids are stuck in failing schools and have no alternatives.
But even with vouchers, she said, "It would surprise me if
it meant the end of public schools." Harrison noted that
the U.S. Postal Service improved once competing companies like
FedEx were introduced; the same could hold true for schools.

However, Blasi maintained that vouchers could
affect public schools negatively. "The worry is that something
like a cherry-picking effect will take place," he said.

Jeffries predicted that most Americans will
come to accept the idea of providing vouchers for schools that
have some kind of religious instruction. But he said private schools
may end up competing with public schools in ways Americans may
be less willing to accept"by offering very different
products indeed." Reported by
M. Wood